|
United States47024 Posts
On July 11 2010 19:19 sluggaslamoo wrote:I don't even know how to reply, your post just doesn't make any sense. 
What about it doesn't make sense? You assert that 7 years of development and 12 years of BW evolution helps should make SC2 a better game than SC1. The thing is, watching Starcraft grow imparts no special knowledge to Blizzard on how to improve it. If Blizzard is to make a game that is definitively better than SC1, they would have to know what elements of SC1 were positive, and which ones were negative. I would argue that NOBODY could make a categorical list of "what's good" and "what's bad" about SC1.
You can never guarantee that a sequel will be better. The sequel is merely the developers' best guess at improving the original game, and what made the original good can't be known with 100% certainty. And the greater the original, the more unlikely it is that the sequel will actually be an improvement. When the game at hand is the best RTS ever made, a sequel that is "100x better from the get-go" is unrealistic, if not downright impossible.
On July 11 2010 19:19 sluggaslamoo wrote:
I'm just gonna say that Arc System Works did exactly that when creating BlazBlue following GuityGear franchise.
They even hired the pro-gamers to create a tutorial DVD that came with a limited edition pack, which featured many high level moves, some which take ages to master, such as Carl's overpowered infinite grab loop. This would be akin to Blizzard hiring pro-gamers to create a tutorial DVD that show-cased muta-stacking & micro, shuttle reaver, etc.
If a small company like Arc System Works can do this, there is no reason Blizzard can't.
So you expect me to take on faith that:
1) BlazBlue is actually an improvement on the game experience of Guilty Gear
2) Guilty Gear is as refined of a game experience as Starcraft 1, and that improving upon it is as difficult or more difficult than improving upon Starcraft 1
Both of these things need to be established as being widely held opinions in the Guilty Gear/BlazBlue competitive community, and not just your opinion, for this anecdote to be meaningful in any way.
|
On July 11 2010 15:34 Saracen wrote:SC2 is more about positional attacks and SC1 is more about unit micro. That's exactly why I find SC2 battles more exciting than BW's.
Both as a player and as an observer I find it more interesting to focus on something like deceptively positioning your forces to gain an advantage, as opposed to telling units to move out of a damage-over-time spell's area of effect. Additionally, I like for the outcome of the game to be decided by the former more than the latter.
I enjoy watching battles in BW, but for the grand tactics, not seeing a player's ability to overcome interface deficiencies to issue orders to units.
(I'm not saying the macro/micro balance is more or less competitive in SC2 than in BW, just that I enjoy playing and, relevant to this article, watching SC2 more than BW).
|
Great article Saracen. Actually inspires me to get to work on my article examining macro mechanics. I had given up on it, thinking "meh, nothing's gonna change anyway. What's the point?".
What Plexa brought up about colossus drop (TLO's gravitic drive strat), was one of the exact analogies I was going to use for explaining how the strength of the macro mechanics change the dynamics of the game.
If I recall correctly. TLO was annoying as hell and did damage but got overrun because White-Ra produced like 10 more units, ignored TLO's drop, and counter attacked in the early mid game. There's really no place in the game for gimmicky strategies (the equivalents of reaver drop) where you tech up fast and focus on harass while staying low on the army count. High ground advantage being removed is partly to blame here as well.
That is, for 2 out of the 3 races, there's no place for gimmicky strategies. One race has the macro mechanic to encourage it, and that's terran. Protoss and zerg are the type of races that, though they have efficient macro mechanics, need to expand because the nature of their macro mechanics has them oversaturate really fast. Zerg oversaturate the fastest, plus their units are ridiculously weak comparatively so they have no choice but to expand.
Protoss macro mechanic gives them a window for a really strong multigate timing attack in the early mid game (before they have been oversaturated for too long); but should that fail, leaves them crippled and without a chance in hell to recover. This especially plagues terran, because protoss produce anti air units through their natural tech pattern, thus limiting the array of gimmicky strategies for the terrans to choose from.
Terran on the other hand, have to get out of their base before a certain point where the protoss has gotten too many sentries. Otherwise the Protoss will just camp their ramp or some other choke point while expanding. The problem, in the TvP matchup, is that terran has to do this before their macro mechanic has kicked in to the point where they've caught up with the P. To a great extent terrans have to guess in TvP, just like zergs have to in ZvT. Terran has the same problems facing Protoss as Zergs have facing Terran.
* Hard to scout.
* The other race completely dictates the pace of the game until the mid game.
* You have to guess alot
* Surviving until the mid game
What you're left with are two totally undynamic matchups that are disproportionally difficult for one of the races in the matchup. ZvT is ridiculously hard for the zerg, with loads of guessing and taking chances, while the terran can play it out like a standard "flash build" (analogy) that he knows from the back of his hand. Terran dictates the game and thus gets to make most of the choices.
On the other hand T's get the same treatment in TvP. Noobs making 4-5 gates (a standard build of the protoss arsenal) against them while they have to work their asses off to adapt, counter, and find their way out of the mess.
Only in ZvP do I feel that there's some true dynamic. While it's still broken in some ways, there's alot of strategies that both of the races can choose to do. The matchup is usually the most unforgiving for protoss, as any mistake they make gets punished hard due to the nature of the Zerg macro mechanic (and the fact that Protoss can't apply constant pressure in the same ridiculous way Terrans can while they expand in TvZ). But to an extent, protosses can turn this scenario on its head by fast expanding themselves. It makes for a much more interesting matchup than ZvT and PvT.
Anyway, better not blow all my material on this post. I have some interesting ideas on how I'd change the strength of the macro mechanics to better balance the game and once again introduce tactics such as the colossus drop (without easily being run over by a counter attack). For exmaple, I find it sad that something as essential as larva management is completely missing in SC2. Furthermore, that teching actually forced you to make a choice of forgoing units en masse for the sake of having the superior tech (with all it's rewards, whether it be map control (DTs) or harassing possibilities (reaver, vultdrop, fast lurker (drop)). Not as it now, that you can go 4 gate while still building a robo (takes away lots of the tension in the PvP matchup regarding DT rushes).
Posting to get some of my thoughts jotted down before I forget all about them again.
|
Disclaimer: I'm nowhere near a top player.
I think what's missing from SC2 is an element of uncertainty. In SC1 (especially against Protoss, but also against Terran) there's the constant danger of getting a pile of units obliterated in the blink of an eye by things like storm, spider mines, and reavers.
A SC1 game was a constant dynamic between units that are fragile to splash damage but statistically superior (marines, zerglings, mutas, hydras) and the splash abilities that people use to try to kill them. Like the OP said, SC1 took a bunch of unbalanced things and made them balanced. SC1 was like a duel with swords -- one slipup and you get stabbed, and that's that.
SC2, on the other hand, is like a boxing match -- you grind people down with brute force over time. There's nothing as scary as storm, mines, or defilers. You can look at the composition of two armies and figure out who's going to win. Sure, flanks and concaves and so on matter, but not as much -- if you have colossi and a Terran doesn't have vikings you're probably going to just roll over him.
Perhaps this is just because I'm not as good a player at SC2 as I was at SC1 (very long ago), but in SC1 when playing PvZ I often teched templar first. Why? Because I knew I could rely on storm to provide both reliable defense and reliable offense, if I was on my toes. But now I hardly ever make templar -- sure, storm is still good, but it's not going to keep me alive against a zerg macro like SC1 storm would. How many Terran players have said "Oh, my opponent is amassing hydralisks, time to get Hunter-Seeker Missiles to blow them all up"? Not many. The few mass-damage AoE effects are just not strong enough to rely on.
Instead, we get spells that let you a-move better: Infested Terrans, Auto-Turrets, Point Defense Drone, Guardian Shield. In many ways all of these are just ways to simulate having more guys than you really do.
The "terrible damage" tricks just aren't able to keep up with the army composition/macro game; only another huge well-composed army will, and who wins comes down to concaves and flanking -- or just who has more dudes. It's strategic, but it's not as nailbiting.
|
I don't think SC2 is developed enough for such conclusions, even if the article is brilliantly written.
|
"Can I pull back my vessels before he scourges them before I can irradiate his defiler before he can cast a swarm before I can split my M&M around his lurker field? Good luck" LOL
While I agree to some degree with what was said, I think I'm gonna reserve my judgement for later. I still feel like sc2 is too new to make such a decision. Especially consider that most of the amazing scenarios described didn't exist in vanilla sc, and we've got two expansions ahead of us. Who knows what'll happen after that.
|
And the OP is the reason why I enjoy to watch BW far more than SC2, even though I only play SC2 atm.
|
Starcraft II is definitely too new to judge its micro as lacking.
I have yet to see a perfectly microed battle. Stalkers using blink to tank damage, damaged units falling out of range, while phoenixes graviton beam to lift vital units like tanks or immortals, as a well placed force-field locks the enemy into a psi-storm. To this day I have never seen a pro micro phoenixes while still managing everything else flawlessly.
I think most of the common strategies at the moment are the easiest and utilize the least micro. Hence why they've become so powerful early on. I imagine the strategies we use now will get absolutely annihilated later on by builds that focus more on micro. Blink, graviton beam, storm, force-field, feedback Protoss builds.
Better usage of Ravens, viking range, snipe, hellions, medivacs, drops, reapers.
Sorry Zerg.  Although I think the uber importance of positioning and creeping the map is very interesting by itself.
|
Thanks for this artikel Saracen! Enjoyed reading it and i sure have to agree with your points. I think we can all agree that Starcraft 2 is a very good game. I do think though that i personally give this game more of a chance than other rts games based on the fact that it is Starcraft and that it's "flaws" or lack of "Broodwar elements" will eventually lead to me not playing the game anymore, or only in a very casual way. Im curious to how much maps and progamers can shape the SC2 experience for me though and am very much looking forward to it.
It's funny because back in 98 to early 2k really UMS and team games did the trick for me and only later on 1v1 became the center of my attention. It seems like it's going to be the exact opposite with SC2.
But we have nothing but time right? I think people need to realize there is much more analysing than actual complaining going on here. Players and spectators stayed with Broodwar for a decade for a reason, they like to point out why now by comparing elements.
|
Denmark2142 Posts
This is exactly why I stopped playing SC2 a few months ago. I just don't feel that good while playing it. Or while watching it.
|
Saracen should L2P instead of whine about the micro of a game which has not even been fully released.
Take this statement: "No amount of infestors will change the a game as much as GGplay's defilers did versus Iris." I can honestly say I have ALREADY seen some really awesome timings in pro replays with fungal growth, baneling drops, queen healing, force fields, storms, infestor-EMPing, etc. etc. that already make THIS game more fun to watch.
|
On July 11 2010 21:42 virgol wrote:
Saracen should L2P instead of whine about the micro of a game which has not even been fully released.
.
You should make a bo7 vs Saracen :p
|
Disagree. Just someone being a crybaby. The amount of game changing damage a few blue flames can make (and you need to wait for that upgrade) to a mineral line. The way a well places baneling minefield or carpet bombing can change the tide. The insane splash collossi do, and how much difference the extended thermal lances do. How much difference Marauder Kiting makes.
All the things he is missing from the original, it is still there. It's just not in the same places, so he doesn't seem to be able to find it.
|
Can't help but disagree. I don't think we have the experience to compare the two games, and we possibly never will if SC1 survives and continues to be a big force. I personally enjoy watching SC2 as much if not more than SC1, but that's not a factual thing.
Expecting SC2 play to be as skilled as SC1 play with a 12 year difference in experience seems silly. The game is focused on compositions because people have, basically, no idea what they're doing yet.
|
Good reading. Just nitpicking:
"Fast forward to SC2 and the emergence of autocasting..."
I think you are referring to smartcasting, not autocasting, as autocasting is present in SC: BW too although SC2 have Repair and Interceptor as autocasting too. Not that much as big deal as smartcasting.
|
Nice article! It exactly summed up my feelings since the first time i've seen the BETA. Watching BW matches is so much fun and watching SC2 is nowhere near it. Playing SC2 is a lot of fun, but i just don't get the same feeling i had playing BW. Well it is different game and we shall see if it succeeds.
Only thing that makes me angry is, that everything we said is wrong on SC2 is there for purpose and Blizzard knows about it. They dumbed it down so very young people can play it and casual player enjoys it...they know that hardcore bw players will play it anyways and there will be money turneys involved so it is ok, so they are trying to make it closer for the casuals and wc3like players to get more people playing it.
It will unfortunately not ever be as perfect as bw was but that is not the point. It will be game that will take over esports and probably bring it to another level worldwide - but not perfect as bw - that is sad if you compare the possibilities now and before.
|
...I thought I'm the only one thinking that SC2 had lost something in SCBW. WE ARE AT LEAST MORE!
|
Why are we comparing 10 years of brood war meta-game to another game that hasn't been released yet, let alone constantly played at the professional level.
How about we wait and compare sc2 + first expansion to sc:bw and see where that takes us.
|
How old starcraft 1 and brood war compared to Starcraft 2. Wich is still in beta.
:|
|
Different games are different, what's good is that BW will always be here for us to play as well, and SC2 is shaping to be a even better game than Warcraft 3 (which most people here would probably argue that sucked :D), which already had a big crowd following it.
What I can't understand is why people assume SC:BW and SC2 can't coexist, its like (lame comparison inc) saying that American football was doomed from the start just because there was already the Euro football (aka American Soccer).
So, instead of trying to make SC2 be SC1 with better graphics (which I'm sure some map maker will produce eventually ) try to help making it the best game it can be, and don't throw SC:BW away because its still the best game ever 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
